Journalist tries to defend Feminism

Dawn Picken in the Bay of Plenty Times wrote an article called ‘The F word’ (another version exists also with a longer title). Here is our response to her:

Dear Dawn

We were interested in your article about ‘the F word’ published 27/01/17 and we believe a number of your assertions deserve critique. It would appear that you haven’t come across any of the substantial body of sound, rational consideration of your feminist claims, or if you have then you have chosen to disregard it and to maintain your allegiance to feminism, in which case the following will be a futile exercise other than as a catharsis for the writers.

“I subscribe to the definition of feminism that says everyone, male and female, should have equal political, economic and social rights.”

We would also support a movement with that definition. Unfortunately, although from the outset some defined feminism as seeking gender equality for all, feminists have never operated according to that definition; they have never shown any significant interest in true gender equality. In practice they have only been concerned to promote the interests of women and to ensure that women aren’t disadvantaged in any way. When it comes to the many ways in which males are disadvantaged or discriminated against, feminists have been conspicuously silent and/or have kept their heads firmly in the sand. Your article is a case in point.

“In many societies, including this one, women still aren’t paid on par with male counterparts…Statistics New Zealand figures show women earn 12 per cent less than men in full and part-time work.”

It may be correct that women are earn 12% less on average across all the jobs they do compared to all the jobs men do, but that doesn’t mean women are paid less than ‘their counterparts’. That claim is misleading and dishonest, implying that employers are widely discriminating against women regarding pay rates for equivalent roles and skills. NZ has laws that prohibit employers from paying differently on the basis of gender, and any female who is being paid less than a male with the same qualifications and experience for the same job need only go to the authorities where she will be reimbursed plus extra for humiliation etc. Such cases are rare and we would challenge you to find a woman being paid less for the same job when she has the same qualifications and experience. What you and other feminists are demanding is that women are paid as much or more than men on average across all the jobs they do, regardless of the nature of the jobs, regardless of comparative qualifications and experience between the genders, regardless of market forces, and regardless of the risk and conditions involved in those jobs.

There are many reasons for the approximate 12% gender pay gap (even assuming this measurement is valid), but gender discrimination isn’t a significant one. For example, it’s more difficult to fill many of the jobs that men do because of the physical demands and personal cost of those jobs. Men work in jobs that are on average more physically damaging, dirty, uncomfortable and unpleasant. Around 100 men die in their work roles for every 2 or so women each year; i.e. the gender job death gap is around five thousand percent. When one considers this, endless feminist complaining about a 12% pay difference seems churlish. Your article’s failure to mention this shows how little you really care about gender equality. Women are simply not lining up for the jobs that are so likely to kill or maim them, that involve such tasks as crawling around in dirty, tight rat-infested basements and ceilings or balancing on high ladders dealing with lethal power lines. The loss of personnel due to injury in those jobs contributes to the supply and demand forces resulting in somewhat higher wages.

“Women in Saudi Arabia can’t drive; women in El Salvador are jailed for suffering miscarriages; women in Yemen can’t leave home without their husbands’ permission…”

Well yes, but in such countries men are also discriminated against and treated harshly; the issue is different attitudes from ours to concepts of justice and human rights. Men but not women in many countries are subjected to military conscription. Men are much more often executed by governments who operate a death penalty. Men are expected to take full responsibility for providing economically for their wives and are socially and legally punished for any failure in that regard. Men are held legally responsible for their wives’ behaviour in many cases. Your list of injustice towards females in other countries without any mention of the injustice, indeed greater injustice overall towards males again highlights how little you actually apply your fancied definition of feminism.

“The NZ Ministry of Justice says 24 per cent of women have experienced at least one sexual offence during their lives. That figure was 6 per cent for men.”

These figures arise from self-report research with unknown reliability and/or advocacy research designed to obtain predetermined results. Also, definitions of sexual offending have been expanded progressively due to feminist demands, so these figures will reflect many instances that historically (and reasonably) would have been seen simply as, for example, benign attempts by teenage boys to commence petting in the hope that their dates may have similar ideas, that stop quickly and respectfully if the girl indicates she doesn’t want it. Males are still largely expected to initiate such sexual activity and to risk rejection in doing so. If a teenage boy or indeed an older man (with an older woman) doesn’t initiate petting, or if he seems unconfident in doing so or creates an uncomfortable situation by trying to talk about it first, he is likely to find his date moves on to a more confident male. Feminist ideas of ‘informed consent for every step’ and ‘new age sensitive men’ are unrealistic, and men who try to conform to these claimed ideals are generally treated as nice but not of sexual interest. Bad boys and alpha males are still the ones whom females make themselves available to. Let’s be fair here.

Nevertheless, it is true that females are more often subjected to sexual violence however one might define it. Our laws provide for harsher punishments for sexual offences than for almost any other violence or offending. What you failed to mention is that males are more often subjected to other forms of violence including homicide. Again, it’s surprising that homicide inequality was of no interest to someone who does focus on sexual violence inequality and who claims to follow an ideology “that says everyone, male and female, should have equal political, economic and social rights”. Regardless of who commits the homicides in what proportion, surely an interest in ‘equal rights’ would include some attention to how we might enhance the right of men to be protected from the high rate of serious violence directed at them.

“I struggle to explain more nuanced parts of sexism – parts so deeply woven into society, men and women alike may not recognise them. …What’s more insidious is time and money spent chasing the feminine ideal of youthful slenderness. Females represent 90 per cent of eating disorders; 85 to 90 per cent of cosmetic surgeries in the US are performed on women versus men.”

What definition of ‘sexism’ are you using to imply that these are examples of it?! Men aren’t forcing women to focus on their appearance any more than women are forcing men to be well groomed or to prioritize their careers. Sure, men and women will select each other based on such things and men and women will compete in such ways for more desirable mates, but it’s a stretch to blame this on sexism or indeed to suggest that any such sexism is more pronounced in either direction. Women are the limited resource in the sociobiological reproductive stakes and have more sexual power. They are exercising their right and privilege to enhance this power by indulging in their appearance and to spend much more than men in doing so. Your wording that cosmetic surgeries ‘are performed on’ women is manipulative, implying that women are somehow the victims (again) whereas in fact women demand those services and choose to spend a great deal of money on it. Don’t blame men for this; many men have little respect for female self-indulgence and vanity. It may be a worthwhile aim of feminism to reduce such female traits; good luck there.

If it’s a matter of deformity girls and women will be prioritized in having this changed or covered up to appear more normal. Any sexism involved there is against males whose problems in this regard will be seen as much less important or deserving of compassion and investment. Men are shown much less compassion and caring than women are in most areas. For example, men in NZ and many other countries are sentenced more harshly for the same crimes and shown less understanding regarding their behaviour than women are. That is another inequality that feminists routinely ignore, again discrediting any definition of feminism as ‘seeking gender equality’ other than advantage for females.

“Our vocabularies are filled with words implying men are stronger than women. When’s the last time you heard someone say, “Woman up” or “Grow a pair” [of breasts]? If you’re seen as weak, you might be called a “pussy”…”

Well, men are physically stronger than women as shown by sports statistics; is that sexism too? The term ‘man up’ means different things to different people but if one is to consider any sexism in that term it would be more discriminatory against males than females. It places expectations on men to conform to male stereotypes of responsibility for their significant others and their society, of stoicism in the face of hardship, and so forth. It diminishes the social worth of men who don’t aren’t conforming to the expected male mould. The fact that people don’t use the term ‘woman up’ to manipulate other women to conform to feminine stereotypes is actually an advantage and a freedom for them.

Your reference to gendered terms is selective and unbalanced and your implication that women are discriminated against more than men by such terms is self-serving nonsense often touted by feminists. What about terms such as ‘prick’, ‘soft-cock’, ‘neanderthal’, ‘wanker’, ‘wimp’, ‘cad’ and ‘sleazeball’? Feminists ignore a balanced consideration of gendered terms in their efforts to find evidence for female victimhood.

“Call me a feminist. It’s the least I can do for my daughter, my son – and for the future of their communities.”

We call it ‘femaleism’. It’s an ideology that prioritizes the rights and wishes of females over males and over the welfare of society generally. Feminism/femaleism may have advanced women’s interests in some ways and it certainly removed a range of unjustified restrictions on women’s choices and freedoms, but it has also produced many undesirable consequences. It has seriously eroded respect and gratitude towards men and their contribution, and brought about widespread intolerance and injustice towards men. It has promoted women to positions on the basis of their gender rather than their qualifications or experience, and has continually demanded equal representation in positions of power and wealth but never in the sewers or rubbish trucks. It has tolerated all areas of inequality disadvantaging men and often encouraged greater such inequality by, for example, driving men out of teaching through suspicion, allegations and general demonization of male characteristics (with hate-speech terms such as ‘toxic masculinity’). It has contributed to a male suicide rate that now exceeds the total road toll each year. It has eroded masculinity so that when male aggression and bravery are required in future there won’t be much of it available, and many men simply won’t be prepared to put themselves out for a society that has so maligned them. It has resulted in irrational mistrust towards males by everyone from young children upward and this has caused destabilizing division in our society. It has seriously damaged the concept of family and has resulted in more than half of our children being subjected to the trauma of family break-ups, deprived of the stability and security of a stable, biological family unit and raised with inadequate role modeling in the absence of one gender. It has resulted in hundreds of thousands of our children having their relationships with their fathers seriously damaged or discontinued.

Feminism is one of the most dishonest ideologies to befall humanity. It is based almost entirely on false propaganda, invented statistics, selective and unbalanced observations and scientifically poor research.

So, by all means, keep reassuring yourself that being a femaleist is somehow right and proper and that you will help your children and their society by indoctrinating them with it. But that won’t make it true.

7 Responses to “Journalist tries to defend Feminism”

Well written MOMA.
I would have added pertaining to sex crimes.
Men are forced to have sex with women as often as women are forced to have sex with men.
Offences by females such as groping men are completely ignored.
Only women lie about who the father is on birth certificates.
Only women lie about being on the pill etc.

Arrest can be arbitrary for men in domestic violence cases, but offending generally ignored if the female is the offender.
This is despite research around the world showing females are as, or more domestically violent than men.

We could go on and on and on.
Congratulations in holding back and keeping your response so short.

Feminist media at work agian
There is in effect a blackout in NZ media in terms of reporting the Berkeley riot.
Where’s the Herald is Stuff article on it.
My guess is that NZs feminist media despise Milo so much that any thing that even mentions his name is banned.
This event is a major news item and deserves reporting.
A female trump supporter talking to a media person and filmed being pepper sprayed by a masked man for doing so.
Many were attacked.
One man was filmed being blindsided with a punch then attacked agian while the mob began to restrain the victim so he could be given a proper beating. Unfortunately for the main attacker the victim had a concealed gun and shot him. The police arrested him but due to the video recordings was released without charge.
The rioters halted free speech by Milo being forced to cancel his talk.
The campus was wrecked by the rioters.
Not news apparently.

What’s so wrong with what Milo was going to say?
My guess if NZ readers knew about this they might want to find out.

“Some schools have cancelled or indefinitely postponed events featuring Yiannopoulos because they often generate such intense responses. In January, a man was shot and seriously wounded as fights broke out during one of those events at the University of Washington.”
Didn’t say a trump supporter attacked by a mob acted in self defence. No fight broke out. A person viscously attacked a person without that person trying to fight the other. Fights involve two willing or able to respond participants. It should have said a man who was assaulted in a cowardly manner by a mob of protestors acted in self defence by shooting one of the people attacking him as he justly feared for his life.

“Security officials said that about 150 “masked agitators” joined the demonstration, setting fires, throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks and attacking some members of the crowd.”
This essentially is a rent a riot group of thugs that enjoy the thrill of rioting due to the fact they get away with it.
If I was the police I would say
Want to protest, sure, I’m cool with that.
Wear a mask, or cover your face you will be arrested, for intent. Property damage and assualt etc.
What’s interesting is that very few protesting can support with argument why they are protesting.
Ie can’t combat Milo in argument because facts don’t support there position.
They are left with slogans.
Milo is a biggot. How?
Milo is a misoginist. How?
Etc.

“He has also denounced rape culture as a myth propagated by feminists ‘aimed squarely at undermining masculinity.'”
I’ve never heard an argument that proves his position is wrong.

“More than 100 faculty members signed two letters to Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks. One said: “Although we object strenuously to Yiannopoulos’s views – he advocates white supremacy, transphobia and misogyny – it is rather his harmful conduct to which we call attention in asking for the cancellation of this event.”
The left has taken possession of the education system.
With a generation of youth brainwashed by them.
Milo might be the last person that can save us.

“It is tragic that the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement is also its final resting place.”

There were short stories about the Milo shut down on both Radio NZ and on television news. The television story was very brief and showed the ‘social justice’ protestors at work. You are correct DJ Ward in highlighting the political bias of our news media because they have not followed this story up at all to explore the issues or to expose the dangerous lack of social justice principles demonstrated by these feminists and self-appointed moral experts.

For anything to occur in the direction of social justice some principles are crucial, such as free speech, honesty, good scientific standards of social research, willingness to discuss and debate matters, and respect for others’ right to hold opinions while disagreeing strongly and vocally with them. We can see the feminists and other extremists totally disregarding such principles.

“Men have governed the world since time immemorial and what has the world been like?”
Actually there has been a number of female ruled societies.
They all failed.
Interesting that they don’t include Queen Elizabeth 1 or 2 or Queen Victoria in there thinking.
What about Thatcher, Merkel, Clark.
Matriarchy societies are not nonexistent in history.

“Men everywhere had to take responsibility for women’s unpaid work for an entire day. Most of them barely coped.”
So they had to do there real work jobs, look after the kids, cook dinner, do the washing etc etc.
They barely coped.
But guess what.
They coped.

“And what about all the paid work women do? All those nurses and doctors, administrators and teachers, engineers and lawyers, retail staff and child care workers, what would happen to the country if they took a day off work together, to protest the 27% gender pay gap?”
Pity the author was too blinded by feminist lies to explain why the gap exists.
They work less hours.
They do less dangerous work.
Despite the pay gap, they are paid the same per hour of work for the same job, experience and qualification.

“How would men react if all the women in Australia decided to take the day off and play golf or go to the pub, rally in the streets or just lie on the couch with a book? Anger? Support? Wry amusement at how lost they are without the work that women do?”
Yes it would be great struggle without women working.
We would hardly cope.
Only just.
But we would cope.
And then invent solutions to cope better.

If all men stopped work.
The world would grind to a halt.
And we would be back in the Stone Age in no time.

As a stay at home dad this article is insulting.
I do get paid for my parenting work.
Not much.
Especially as the misses takes it off me anyway.
Working for families.

Yes she got treated very badly.
Yes he was a bad man.
Yes a women was permitted to take a private prosecution.
(Men should start doing this)

But to celebrate a birth?
To a women who has decided to be a solo mum?
For the fifth time.
Fatherless parenting is not worth a mention.
It’s ok.
She has a good reason to hate men that much.
And punish children for it.

The dog got a mention.
So it makes it all better.

Where’s the father?
Or fathers.

As for births deaths and marriages.
I wonder if they will check if she even names a father?

DJ Ward @6: Good comments. Note how this woman refers to “my daughter” and the article to “her children”.

Given that this assault for which she apparently got ‘justice’ occurred in 2010, has she also so much resentment for the father of this fifth baby (or any of the others) that she doesn’t involve him/them and there is no mention of them?

Men, take a good look at the photo of this woman and make sure you never make the mistake of sleeping with her because you are liable to become of victim of sexual violation based on misrepresentation of birth control, become liable for so-called ‘child support’ to add to the five other lots she is probably receiving, and be made completely powerless to have any meaningful role with the resulting child who shares your genes.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Latest Comments

Downunder Mon 19th March 2018 at 9:17 pm on Judge Timothy Druce@Bradley What feminist journalists do is write emotively, usually to create sympathy. That's actually fiction writing, not journalism, which is (...)

Ministry of Men's Affairs Mon 19th March 2018 at 8:44 pm on Judge Timothy DruceDJ Ward @24: Well said. Law graduates will probably be in their early 20s at the youngest. The age of (...)

Evan Myers Mon 19th March 2018 at 8:43 pm on Judge Timothy DruceA student having finished year 13 at school is expected to be able to handle the work place. A law (...)

DJ Ward Mon 19th March 2018 at 7:23 pm on Judge Timothy Druce#bradley. The only question is the legal one. Was she too pissed to consent. If the answer is yes then (...)

Evan Myers Mon 19th March 2018 at 6:09 pm on Education Issues in 2018Matamata College suspends students for encouraging and filming an assault. This is one the media can take straight to the (...)

voices back from the bush. Mon 19th March 2018 at 3:58 pm on The Psychology of Modern WomanWe have this social problem of domestic violence, according to feminists- all violence is a male construct and when females (...)

Bevan Berg Mon 19th March 2018 at 3:36 pm on Public trust in NZ’s judical systemWhat we see now is an argument between lawyers and politicians as to who might investigate moral issues in the (...)